I applaud the efforts of the WSJ to tackle the weighty issues facing sports journalists these days but I'm also torn. It strikes me as being similar to Congress taking on steroids and baseball. Done well, it's probably not a bad idea. But one is left to wonder if they don't have more important matters to occupy their time.

In WSJ's case, I would like to know if they think there are great stories left untold in sports-land or if they view it as fertile ground given the interests of their readers. Might this be a ploy for circulation growth?

To that end, why go the columnist route rather than the investigative reporter path? If WSJ can devote six months of reporting time to a single story, then that would seem to fill a void more than another voice in the wilderness opining on John Daly or Clemens or the trendy national sports story of the day.